Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
But unless the guy maintaining the cameras is the one watching the footage and giving the tickets there is no *person* involved. When a cop pulls you over, he may have a radar gun but *he* is operating it. If there’s no person there’s no one to testify and no way to enter the evidence. There would be no case.
Right to face the accuser *means* the right to face them as a witness. How else can you question your accuser but to have him as a witness at trial? A machine can not be an accuser since it can not be a witness. When you are talking about a trial the two words are to a degree interchangeable.
This is of course just one way to apply the 6th amendment. There is currently (to the best of my knowledge) no national standard, but I have heard of lower courts finding this to be the case. The Supreme Court has been known to not be very constitutionally consistent when it comes to traffic enforcement though. Their justification for allowing drunk driving checkpoints (which is really a direct violation of no searches without probable cause thing) was basically “but it works so damn well and nothing else does.” So if speed cameras ever made it to them I don’t know for sure how they’d rule, but given how they ruled about other evidence being entered without human input it’s possible they side with lower courts and say it must be a *person* issuing the tickets not an algorithm.